waterfowl conservation strategy for the playa lakes joint ...the purpose of the north american...

Waterfowl Conservation Strategy for the

Playa Lakes Joint Venture (draft 08 Jun 2005)

“To sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving landscapes, through partnerships that are guided by sound science”

A Contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

and the Playa Lakes Joint Venture Implementation Plan

by the Playa Lakes Joint Venture

Waterfowl Team

Jim Dubovsky, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6 Jim Gammonley, Colorado Division of Wildlife

Helen Hands, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Dave Haukos, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2

Bill Johnson*, Texas Parks and Wildlife Kevin Kraai, Texas Parks and Wildlife

Marvin Kraft, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Keith McKnight, Ducks Unlimited Inc.

Tim Mitchusson, New Mexico Game and Fish Department Mike O’Meilia, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

Brian Sullivan**, Playa Lakes Joint Venture Rich Walters, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

*Co-chair. **Co-chair and principle author.

A Working Group of the Playa Lakes Joint Venture Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Team

2

Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................... 3 Background, Purpose, and Intended Audience ............................................................................... 4 The PLJV in the Context of North American Waterfowl and Wetlands ........................................ 5 Approach for Developing Habitat Objectives................................................................................. 6 Step 1: Geographic Planning Areas ............................................................................................... 6 Step 2: Priority Species and Seasons ............................................................................................. 6 Step 3: Population Objectives........................................................................................................ 7 Step 4: Vital Rate Objectives......................................................................................................... 9 Step 5: Limiting Factors................................................................................................................. 9 Step 6: Habitat Objectives ............................................................................................................. 9 Step 7: Measuring Success........................................................................................................... 12 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 12 Updating the Conservation Strategy ............................................................................................. 13 Afterword...................................................................................................................................... 13 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... 13 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 13 APPENDIX A: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Colorado .............................. 24 APPENDIX B: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Kansas.................................. 25 APPENDIX C: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Nebraska .............................. 26 APPENDIX D: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 New Mexico ........................ 27 APPENDIX E: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Oklahoma............................. 28 APPENDIX F: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Texas .................................... 29 APPENDIX G: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR19 Kansas.................................. 30 APPENDIX H: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR19 Oklahoma ............................ 31 APPENDIX I: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR19 Texas ..................................... 32 APPENDIX J: Assumptions Made in Developing This Conservation Strategy.......................... 33 APPENDIX K: PLJV Waterfowl Research Priorities ................................................................. 34

3

List of Figures and Tables Page Figures

1. PLJV Administrative Boundaries. 17 Tables

1. Highest priority waterfowl species, populations, and seasons for the PLJV, as designated in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004 Update). 18

2. PLJV midwinter (early January) waterfowl population objectives. 19

3. PLJV nonbreeding (Sep – Apr) duck use-day equivalent objectives. 20

4. Importance assessment of limiting factors for waterfowl in the PLJV, degree of management control, and priority level for management actions. 21

5. Foraging and roosting habitat importance assessment for waterfowl

in the PLJV region. 22

6. Important waterfowl foraging habitats, energetic carrying capacity, threats, and trends. 23

7. Current carrying capacity of PLJV planning areas for waterfowl, habitat shortfalls, and total and annual habitat objectives. 24

4

Background, Purpose, and Intended Audience North American Waterfowl Management Plan The purpose of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is to sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving landscapes, through partnerships that are guided by sound science (USFWS 2004). Originally signed in 1986, the NAWMP guides waterfowl conservation by developing continental population objectives, identifying geographic regions of North America that contain habitat critical to sustaining waterfowl populations, and forming “Joint Ventures” in these areas to facilitate achieving Plan objectives. Joint Ventures are coalitions of governmental and nongovernmental wildlife conservation agencies and organizations that pool expertise and resources to conserve wetlands and associated habitats important to waterfowl and other birds. The original 1986 NAWMP was updated in 1994, 1998, and 2004 to address changing biological, sociological, and economic conditions influencing waterfowl status cooperative habitat conservation. The theme of the 2004 update is “Strengthening the Biological Foundation” to increase stakeholder confidence in Plan actions (USFWS 2004). Playa Lakes Joint Venture The Playa Lakes Joint Venture (PLJV) was formed in 1989 to implement the NAWMP in the Playa Lakes Region (PLR). The original PLR included northwestern Texas and portions of southeastern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, eastern New Mexico, and western Oklahoma. The PLJV originally developed waterfowl population and habitat objectives in 1994 for its Implementation Plan (PLJV 1994).

Since 1994 the PLJV has expanded geographically to include most of the Short-grass and Mixed-grass Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) (Fig. 1), and expanded its focus to include all birds (PLJV 2004a). The PLJV updated its Implementation Plan in 2004 (PLJV 2004b); the adaptive approach to planning used by the PLJV requires maintaining up-to-date waterfowl population and habitat objectives. PLJV Waterfowl Team The PLJV Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Team (MERT) formed a 12-member working group (Waterfowl Team; hereafter referenced as “team”) in 2003 to update and maintain its waterfowl population and habitat objectives. The team is comprised of waterfowl experts from all 6 PLJV states, USFWS Regions 2 and 6, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., and PLJV staff. State and federal members have migratory game bird regulatory and monitoring responsibilities for their respective agencies, and are affiliated with the Central Flyway Technical Committee. Two team members are members of the NAWMP Science Support Team (NSST), and 6 team members also serve on the PLJV’s MERT.

5

Goal, Purpose, and Intended Audience Our goal was to improve the biological foundation for PLJV waterfowl conservation actions by developing waterfowl objectives in a manner consistent with the guidance and needs of the NAWMP and the PLJV. Specifically, we developed (1) regional waterfowl population objectives that are stepped-down from continental objectives in the NAWMP, and (2) regional waterfowl habitat objectives that are linked biologically to continental population objectives. The purpose of this report is to provide detailed documentation of the procedures used to develop these objectives. The intended audience is biologists with technical orientation that are interested in the scientific underpinnings of PLJV waterfowl conservation objectives. This report serves as a technical companion document to the PLJV’s Implementation Plan (PLJV 2004b). The PLJV’s HABS (Hierarchical All Bird System) database stores the biological data used to model the current carrying capacity of the PLJV for waterfowl (see Appendices A-I). Waterfowl habitat objectives developed herein are included in the PLJV’s Area Implementation Plans.

The PLJV in the Context of North American Waterfowl and Wetlands The PLJV region lies entirely within the Central Flyway, and largely corresponds to BCRs 18 (Shortgrass Prairie) and 19 (Mixed-grass Prairie) in the Southern Great Plains region of the continent (Fig. 1). Most waterfowl species common to the Central Flyway use the region (e.g., see Bolen et al. 1989, Ringelman et al. 1989, Smith 2003). Waterfowl in the PLJV use a wide range of natural and man-made wetlands and upland, agricultural habitats for foraging and roosting. Importance of the various habitats is discussed later in this report. Within the PLJV, the NAWMP has identified 2 areas of continental significance to North American waterfowl: the playa lakes in the Texas panhandle and surrounding regions (largely corresponding to the original PLJV boundary), and the central Kansas marshes (USFWS 2004:15). The Cheyenne Bottoms and Quivera wetlands of central Kansas also are designated as wetlands of international importance under the RAMSAR convention. Based on available waterfowl migration chronology data (see below), the PLJV region is important to waterfowl primarily as a migration area, and secondarily as a wintering area (especially for Mallards and Canada Geese). Many waterfowl species also breed in the region, but at low densities compared to primary breeding areas (Ray et al. 2003). Given the importance of the region primarily as a migration and wintering area, our understanding of the annual life cycle needs of waterfowl suggest that the ability to acquire sufficient food to (1) meet daily energy requirements, and (2) gain body mass (i.e., acquire fat reserves) for migration, is of paramount importance for waterfowl in the PLJV (also see Limiting Factors section below).

6

Approach for Developing Habitat Objectives We used a bioenergetics approach to develop nonbreeding waterfowl habitat objectives, explained in detail in the sections below:

1. Determine planning scale (geographic areas). 2. Determine priority species and seasons. 3. Develop population (abundance) objectives:

a) midwinter abundance objectives b) bi-weekly abundance objectives for entire (fall – spring) nonbreeding season

4. Develop vital rate (i.e., population performance) objectives. 5. Determine limiting factors for #3-4. 6. Develop habitat objectives:

a) estimate energetic demands for nonbreeding waterfowl (total use-days & duck use-day equivalents)

b) determine important habitats and energetic carrying capacities per acre (i.e., define relationships between waterfowl abundance/vital rates and habitat characteristics)

c) measure habitats to determine current quantity d) model current landscape carrying capacity for nonbreeding waterfowl and

determine if habitat shortfalls exist e) describe conservation strategy to increase or maintain landscape carrying capacity

for waterfowl 7. Develop criteria for measuring success.

Step 1: Geographic Planning Areas

Geographic planning areas for this strategy are the BCR portions of states (e.g., BCR18-Texas) (n=9; see Fig. 1). Planning and implementation for waterfowl at this scale ensures (1) that the desired distribution of waterfowl and their habitats throughout the states and BCRs within the PLJV is achieved; (2) consistency with NAWMP geographic prioritization regions (i.e., BCRs – see Step 2 below); and (3) consistency with planning boundaries for other bird conservation initiatives.

Step 2: Priority Species and Seasons The 2004 NAWMP update prioritizes waterfowl species for conservation action for each BCR (USFWS 2004). For the PLJV (BCRs 18 and 19), highest priority duck species are Northern Pintails and Mallards, and highest priority goose species are Canada geese (Shortgrass Prairie, Hi-line, and Western Prairie/Great Plains Populations), Snow Geese (Western Central Flyway and Midcontinent Populations), and Greater White-fronted Geese (Midcontinent Population) (Table 1). In the PLJV, these goose populations are of concern due to overabundance, declining populations, or high regional responsibility, whereas duck species are of concern due to declining populations or societal importance (see USFWS 2004).

7

The only NAWMP breeding season priority for the PLJV was Canada Goose (Western Prairie/Great Plains Population). However, this goose population was a priority for the nonbreeding season also. As explained in other sections, we believe the PLJV region is far more important for nonbreeding than for breeding waterfowl, and we focus exclusively on the nonbreeding season for this planning initiative. Although the NAWMP did not indicate swans as a priority, both trumpeter and tundra swans likely are well below historical numbers in the PLJV. Of the 6 PLJV states, only Nebraska consistently hosts swans (nonbreeding trumpeters). We did not include swans in this iteration of PLJV waterfowl conservation planning, but may do so in the future. As described in the sections below, we sought to develop PLJV waterfowl objectives largely consistent with NAWMP guidance for species, population, and seasonal priorities. The bioenergetics approach we used allowed us to determine nonbreeding habitat needs and objectives not only for priority species, but also for non-priority species that obtain food resources from the same habitats.

Step 3: Population Objectives Step 3a - Midwinter abundance objectives Ducks To assist Joint Ventures with waterfowl conservation planning for the nonbreeding season, the NSST developed midwinter (early January) waterfowl population objectives (Koneff undated). For each species, county-level objectives were established by multiplying the average proportion of the total continental midwinter count in each state (1970s midwinter waterfowl survey data), by the average proportion of the statewide harvest occurring in each county (1970s waterfowl harvest survey data). This proportion was multiplied by the continental breeding population objective in the NAWMP, and then divided by 0.85 to account for winter-spring mortality. Counties were aggregated by BCRs and Joint Ventures to facilitate development of regional midwinter objectives. To develop PLJV midwinter objectives, we obtained county-level objectives from the NSST and aggregated them by BCRs and states, conforming to PLJV planning areas. PLJV midwinter duck population objectives for these planning units are shown in Table 2. This approach had limitations, likely due to anomalies in the midwinter survey and/or harvest data. For example, some species are missing (Blue-winged Teal, Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead). However, taken over all species and all planning areas, we believe these objectives are reasonable starting points for developing habitat objectives. The PLJV midwinter duck population objective is 2.1 million birds (Table 2), and is dominated by dabbling ducks, especially Mallards and Northern Pintails. Diving duck objectives represented a small (<10%) portion of total duck objectives (Tables 2, 3).

8

Geese NAWMP objectives for geese are presented by population, as defined in flyway management plans. However, population-specific winter survey and harvest data were not readily available to the NSST, which precluded developing population-specific midwinter goose objectives. Because we had access to population-specific winter survey data for the PLJV states, we did not use NSST midwinter goose objectives, but rather developed an alternative approach that did not rely on harvest data. We believe our approach is consistent with the NSST intent of developing regional objectives that are stepped-down from continental objectives, and better utilizes existing goose population objectives (from Central Flyway goose management plans) and monitoring data. For each goose population, we calculated the average proportion of the total population counted in each PLJV state during winter surveys (10-year averages of the midwinter waterfowl survey and the historical December goose survey). Data used corresponded to the decade in which the flyway management plan was written (generally 1980s or 1990s). This proportion was multiplied by the continental winter objective from the NAWMP, resulting in state-specific objectives for each goose population. State-specific objectives were allocated to BCRs 18 and 19 by the proportion of total state counts from each BCR (estimates provided by state biologists). This allowed us to develop winter objectives for each goose population for each geographic planning area (Table 2). The PLJV midwinter goose population objective is 386,000 birds (Table 2). Goose population objectives generally were lower than for dabbling ducks, but higher than for diving ducks (Tables 2, 3). Step 3b – Biweekly abundance objectives for the entire nonbreeding season Because the PLJV region is important to waterfowl during fall and spring migration, in planning for waterfowl habitat conservation it is important to understand how many waterfowl would be expected during other times of the nonbreeding season relative to the midwinter period. Therefore, in conjunction with midwinter objectives, we used available waterfowl migration chronology data to develop bi-weekly population objectives for September through April. For September through March, we used migration chronology data collected during aerial surveys of public lands and waters in the PLJV region of Kansas during 1973 – 2002. For most species we consider these data to be the best available for the region. For each species, we took the average count for each bi-weekly period, and divided the result by the average count for the midwinter (early January) period. This proportion was multiplied by the midwinter objective to obtain period objectives. Kansas data were not available for April, so for that month we used regional migration chronology data presented in Bellrose (1980). We sought to use the best available local migration chronology data for developing these period objectives. Therefore, for white-fronted geese in the BCR19 portion of Texas, we used migration chronology data from sightings of neck-banded birds presented in Anderson and Haukos (2003).

9

For brevity, bi-weekly population abundance objectives are not presented in this report. These are maintained by the PLJV for each planning area, and are available upon request.

Step 4: Vital Rate Objectives To address the question of how should waterfowl populations “perform” or “be influenced” while in the PLJV, we believe waterfowl abundance objectives should be complemented by vital rate objectives (survival, body condition, etc.). For example, it would not be prudent for managers to attract large numbers of birds to the PLJV region if survival rates are below levels needed to sustain continental population objectives. Ideally, regional vital rate objectives for nonbreeding waterfowl in the PLJV would be developed as part of broader, continental strategies, but no such strategy currently exists for any species under the NAWMP. Therefore, we elected to defer developing survival rate objectives. A body condition objective “to maintain body condition of waterfowl while in the PLJV” is established as part of the bioenergetics approach to developing habitat objectives (see Section 6 below).

Step 5: Limiting Factors Given the population abundance objectives described above, and our desire to develop meaningful vital rate objectives, we considered a range of factors thought to influence the abundance, survival, and body condition of nonbreeding waterfowl in the PLJV. Each factor was ranked according to perceived importance, and to the potential for management control (Table 4). These results, based on the expert opinion of the team, suggest that habitat (both for foraging and roosting) is the major factor limiting waterfowl abundance and vital rates in the PLJV. Team members felt there was a large gap in importance between the top 2 limiting factors (foraging and roosting habitat), and the third-ranked factor (disease; Table 4). We note that limiting factors previously considered of high importance by the PLJV, such as disease and contaminants (PLJV 1994), now are considered of lower importance. In large part this is thanks to research (e.g., Samuel et al. 2004) and management actions undertaken by PLJV partners. Waterfowl studies from the Texas PLR support the team’s conclusions. Waterfowl abundance (TPW unpubl. data) and Northern Pintail survival and body condition (Moon 2004) are higher during winters with more flooded playas. Guthery et al. 1984 demonstrated that the amount water on the landscape was the primary determinant of duck abundance.

Step 6: Habitat Objectives

Given our understanding of the importance of food energy to nonbreeding waterfowl, and our opinion that foraging habitat is a primary factor limiting waterfowl abundance, survival, and

10

body condition in the PLJV, we used a bioenergetics approach to developing waterfowl habitat objectives. Step 6a - Estimate energetic demands for nonbreeding waterfowl (use-days & duck use-day equivalents) To estimate energetic demands of nonbreeding waterfowl in the PLJV, we first developed use-day objectives for each species and biweekly period. Period population objectives were simply multiplied by the number of days in the period. Next, because energetic carrying capacity (ECC) of waterfowl habitats often is expressed in units of energy sufficient to meet daily energy requirements of a Mallard-sized duck during winter (292 kcal/day; Prince 1979), we adjusted period use-days for each species based on the body size of the species relative to Mallards. Body mass of each species was divided by the body mass of Mallards (adult male data from Bellrose 1980). This factor was multiplied by the period use-day objective for each species to obtain “Duck Use-Day Equivalents” (DUDEs). E. g., American Green-winged Teal are 0.25 times as large as Mallards, so 100 American Green-winged Teal use-days become 25 DUDEs for bioenergetics planning. DUDEs were summed over all periods to give total nonbreeding (September – April) DUDE objectives (Table 3). For brevity, biweekly use-day objectives are not presented in this report. These are maintained by the PLJV for each planning area, and are available upon request. Step 6b - Determine important habitats and energetic carrying capacities per acre (i.e., define relationships between waterfowl abundance/vital rates and habitat characteristics) We listed habitats believed to be important for foraging and/or roosting waterfowl in the PLJV. We associated these habitats with applicable waterfowl guilds (dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese), and categorized them by importance based on the expert opinion of the team (Table 5). This exercise reinforced the importance of upland, agricultural habitats to foraging waterfowl in the PLJV in addition to wetlands, as demonstrated by several previous studies (e.g., Baldassarre and Bolen 1984). It also raised questions about the importance of juxtaposition of foraging and roosting habitats (see Guthery et al. 1984, Moon 2004). We selected a subset of these habitats for modeling the ECC of each planning area (Table 6). Selection criteria included foraging habitats of high or moderate importance to ducks and geese (Table 5). Only major habitats prevalent in large portions of the PLJV were considered. Minor habitats, or those of local importance, were not considered. In Table 6 we present the ECC of each habitat, and cite our sources of information. ECC is expressed as DUDEs/acre, and is based on (1) the energy requirement of a Mallard-sized duck for maintaining body condition during winter (292 kcal/day; Prince 1979), (2) the mass of seeds, leafy plant material, and invertebrates available for foraging birds in the habitat (as measured from field studies), and (3) the energy content of those foods (as measured from laboratory

11

studies). ECC studies for some habitats are lacking, especially habitats containing important leafy plant material (e.g., pondweeds, winter wheat), so we made assumptions on ECC for some habitats. We also present threats and trends of these habitats, again based on the expert opinion of the team (Table 6). Step 6c - Measure habitats to determine current quantity Using available spatial data, agricultural statistics, and assumptions, we estimated the acreage of important waterfowl foraging habitats (described in Table 6) in each planning area. Habitat assessment procedures are described in detail in a companion technical document (PLJV 2004c). For some deepwater habitats (e.g., reservoirs, freshwater lakes, stock ponds, lagoons) we made assumptions on the proportion of the total habitat acreage that would be suitable depth for waterfowl foraging (see Table 6 and Appendices A-I). Mapping techniques used for playas (see PLJV 2004c) delineated acreage for the entire basins or “hydric footprints”, so we made assumptions the percentage of this acreage that would be available (wet), both within pits only and outside pits (littoral acreage), under average environmental conditions (average precipitation; see Appendices A-I). For all other habitats we assumed the acreage measured represented average environmental conditions, and would be fully available to foraging waterfowl. For example, we assumed National Wetlands Inventory maps for emergent marsh represent acreage during years of average precipitation and not abnormally dry or wet conditions. Step 6d - Model current landscape carrying capacity for nonbreeding waterfowl and determine if habitat shortfalls exist For this step we multiplied the acreage of each foraging habitat (adjusted for suitability and availability as described above) by the ECC per acre of the habitat, and summed over all habitats in a planning area. This figure was divided by the total energetic demands for waterfowl (total DUDEs) in the area to portray current “percent of goal” for carrying capacity. This can be interpreted as the amount of food energy available in the area, compared to the amount needed to support NAWMP population objectives. This analysis suggested that sufficient food resources are available to support NAWMP population objectives in 6 of the 9 planning areas. Apparently, food resources are substantially deficient in the southern portion of the PLJV (BCR18-NM, BCR18-TX, and BCR19-TX), where only approximately 15-30% of waterfowl energy demands could be supported. Food resources apparently are sufficient in the remainder of the PLJV; most areas in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma can support approximately 110-150% of energy demands. The BCR18 portion of Oklahoma is the exception, where 558% of energy demands can be supported. For the 3 planning areas in New Mexico and Texas where foraging habitat was insufficient, we calculated food energy shortfall (expressed as DUDEs). Details of this analysis for each planning area are presented in Appendices A-I and summarized in Table 7.

12

Step 6e - Describe conservation strategy to increase or maintain landscape carrying capacity for waterfowl We recommend moist-soil management of wetlands (playas where possible) to alleviate foraging habitat shortfalls in New Mexico and Texas. Playa acreage in BCR19-Texas is insufficient to meet needs for additional managed habitat, so management of other wetland types will be needed. We justify this strategy as follows:

1. Moist-soil managed wetlands (including playas) can support more foraging use-days per acre than any other foraging habitat (Table 6), so emphasis on moist-soil management minimizes the number of wetland acres under management.

2. Moist-soil management of playas does not require expensive water control structures. 3. Due to the prevalence of groundwater pumping for cropland irrigation in the region,

many groundwater wells are located near playas and other wetlands. 4. Moist-soil managed wetlands will provide stable, predictable foraging habitat in most

years, which is desirable in the PLJV where wetlands often are unpredictable and ephemeral.

This strategy is consistent with recommendations of researchers who have advocated moist-soil management of wetlands for nonbreeding waterfowl in the PLJV (e.g., Anderson and Smith 1998, 1999; Moon 2004). Further, we recommend a 30-year implementation horizon for alleviating the foraging habitat deficits in New Mexico and Texas. Annual acreage objectives for new moist-soil habitat are provided in Table 7. For other planning areas in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma where sufficient foraging habitat currently exists, we emphasize that habitat surpluses are not large (10-50% above objectives) and that we believe several important habitats are declining (Table 5). In these areas, conservation actions directed at long-term protection, restoration, and enhancement of important foraging habitats are strongly encouraged.

Step 7: Measuring Success

<to be completed>……But here is a thought: “When habitat in all PLJV planning areas is not limiting waterfowl from reaching NAWMP objective levels, and is not expected to be limiting in the future, because PLJV conservation actions are sufficient to offset any negative trends in important habitats.”

Monitoring and Evaluation

<to be completed> Appendix J – Assumptions? Appendix K – Research Priorities?

13

Updating the Conservation Strategy

This report represents the PLJV’s first attempt to step down waterfowl population objectives from continental objectives in the NAWMP, and its first attempt to incorporate habitat objectives that are linked biologically to population objectives. Numerous information gaps and uncertainties arose during this planning process, which required us to make assumptions and subjective decisions in developing waterfowl conservation objectives. Some of these information gaps likely will be addressed in future research (see previous sections), which will allow future improvements in PLJV waterfowl conservation planning. Also, further critical thinking and discussion about habitat conservation strategies will create a desire to revise these objectives. The PLJV’s biological planning is an ongoing initiative (see PLJV 2004a, b). Waterfowl conservation objectives should be updated and revised as new information becomes available, and as desired by partners. Finally, we encourage critical review of these objectives, and welcome suggestions for improving them. Please send comments to: Brian Sullivan, Biological Team Leader Tel. 303-926-0777 Playa Lakes Joint Venture [email protected] 103 E. Simpson St. Lafayette, CO 80026

Afterword Waterfowl population and habitat objectives in this report are intended to guide the PLJV in implementing the NAWMP. Achieving these objectives within the next 30 years will be a major undertaking, requiring greater commitments of human and fiscal resources in the future than has occurred in the past. We hope and expect that by adopting these objectives, PLJV partners are inspired to redouble their efforts towards waterfowl and wetlands conservation and management.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mark Koneff and Kammie Kruse (USFWS) for providing data to develop duck and goose population objectives, respectively. We also thank the professors at Texas Tech University, namely Eric Bolen, Fred Guthery, and Loren Smith (and their numerous students and associates), for their research and publications which enabled informed waterfowl conservation planning in the PLJV.

Literature Cited Anderson, J. T., and L. M. Smith. 1998. Protein and energy production in playas: implications

for migratory bird management. Wetlands 18(3):437-446.

14

Anderson, J. T., and L. M. Smith. 1999. Carrying capacity and diel use of managed playa wetlands by nonbreeding waterbirds. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27(2):281-291.

Anderson, J. T., and D. H. Haukos. 2003. Breeding-ground affiliation and movements of

greater white-fronted geese staging in northwestern Texas. Southwest. Nat. 48(3):365-372.

Baldassarre, G. A., and E. G. Bolen. 1984. Field-feeding ecology of waterfowl wintering on the

southern high plains of Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(1):63-71. Bolen, E. G., G. A. Baldassarre, and F. S. Guthery. 1989. Playa lakes. Pages 341-365 in L. M.

Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press. 560pp.

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Gray, P. N., and E. G. Bolen. 1987. Seed reserves in the tailwater pits of playa lakes in relation

to waterfowl management. Wetlands 7:11-23. Guthery, F. S., S. M. Obenberger, and F. A. Stormer. 1984. Predictors of site use by ducks on

the Texas high plains. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:35-40. Haukos, D. A., and L. M. Smith. 1993. Moist-soil management of playa lakes for migrating and

wintering ducks. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:288-298. Koneff, M. Undated. Derivation of regional waterfowl population objectives from NAWMP

continental population objectives. USFWS unpublished report. Moon, J. A. 2004. Survival, movements, and habitat use of female Northern Pintails in the

Playa Lakes Region. M. S. thesis, Texas Tech Univ. 194pp. PLJV. 1994. Final Implementation Plan. 28pp. PLJV. 2004a. Master Plan, v. 2.0. 29pp. PLJV. 2004b. PLJV Implementation Planning Guide, v. 1.0. 38pp. PLJV 2004c. Habitat Assessment Procedures, v. 1.0. 17pp. Prince, H. H. 1979. Bioenergetics of postbreeding dabbling ducks. Pages 103-117 in T. A.

Bookout, editor. Waterfowl and wetlands – an integrated review. North Central Section of The Wildlife Society, Madison, Wisconsin.

Ray, J. D., B. D. Sullivan, and H. W. Miller. 2003. Breeding ducks and their habitats in the

High Plains of Texas. Southwest. Nat. 48:241-248.

15

Reinecke, K. J., and C. R. Loesch. 1996. Integrating research and management to conserve wildfowl (Anatidae) and wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, U.S.A. Gibier Faune Sauvage, Game Wildl. 13:927-940.

Ringelman, J. K, W. R. Eddleman, and H. W. Miller. 1989. High plains reservoirs and sloughs.

Pages 311-340 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press. 560pp.

Samuel, M. D., W. P. Johnson, D. J. Shadduck, and D. R. Goldberg. 2004. The role of snow

geese as carriers of avian cholera in the Playa Lakes Region. USGS unpubl. rept., 47pp. Smith, L. M. 2003. Playas of the Great Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin. 257pp. USFWS. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Strengthening the Biological

Foundation. Strategic Guidance and Implementation Framework documents.

16

Figure 1. PLJV Administrative Boundaries.

17

Table 1. Highest priority waterfowl species, populations, and seasons for the PLJV, as designated in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004 Update).

Species/Population Season BCR* 18 BCR* 19 Northern Pintail Nonbreeding X X Mallard Nonbreeding X X Canada Goose - Shortgrass Prairie Population Nonbreeding X Canada Goose – Hi-line Population Nonbreeding X Canada Goose – W. Prairie/Great Plains Population Breeding X Canada Goose – W. Prairie/Great Plains Population Nonbreeding X Snow Goose – Midcontinent Population Nonbreeding X Snow Goose – Western Central Flyway Population Nonbreeding X Greater White-fronted Goose – Midcontinent Population Nonbreeding X *Bird Conservation Region.

18

Table 2. PLJV midwinter (early January) waterfowl population objectives. CO KS NE NM OK TX PLJV

Species 18 18 19 KS

Total 18 18 18 19 OK

Total 18 19 TX Total 18 Total 19 Total PLJV Tot.

MALL

93,400

90,612

512,969

603,581

78,181

24,942

5,115

159,491

164,606

149,825

116,078

265,903

442,075

788,537

1,230,612

GADW

76

30

383

414

22

2,621

54

2,288

2,343

30,886

44,382

75,268

33,689

47,054

80,743

AMWI

281

641

3,511

4,152

61

11,104

195

10,571

10,766

49,372

37,397

86,768

61,653

51,479

113,132

AGWT

267

252

2,049

2,300

1

4,931

144

2,721

2,865

86,479

84,706

171,185

92,073

89,476

181,548

NSHO

170

0

3

3

0

1,769

7

185

192

19,763

9,037

28,800

21,710

9,225

30,936

NOPI

445

75

515

590

6

8,353

28

622

650

146,763

153,694

300,457

155,671

154,830

310,501

WODU 0 0 0 0 0 0

846

26,566

27,412

5,354

5,372

10,726

6,200

31,938

38,138

Dabblers

94,639

91,610

519,429

611,039

78,270

53,721

6,390

202,444

208,834

488,441

450,666

939,107

813,071

1,172,539

1,985,610

REDH

8

3

28

31

3

380

6

591

597

60,910

23,773

84,682

61,311

24,392

85,702

CANV

0

0

3

4

4

1,136

3

191

194

6,897

3,330

10,227

8,040

3,524

11,565

LESC 0

5

48

54

58

433

18

1,805

1,824

18,871

18,868

37,739

19,386

20,722

40,108

RNDU

1

49

1,142

1,191

3

1,333 0

2,153

2,153

438

3,000

3,438

1,823

6,295

8,118

RUDU 0 0

1

1 0

396 0

62

62

2,407

188

2,594

2,802

251

3,054

Divers

10

58

1,224

1,281

69

3,677

28

4,802

4,830

89,522

49,159

138,680

93,363

55,184

148,547

Tot. Ducks

94,648

91,668

520,653

612,321

78,339

57,397

6,418

207,246

213,664

577,963

499,825

1,077,788

906,433

1,227,723

2,134,157

CAGO - HL

10,981 0 0 0

6,127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17,107 0

17,107

CAGO-WP/GP 0

780

31,212

31,993

24,370 0 0

5,926

5,926 0 0 0

25,151

37,138

62,289

CAGO - SGP 27,879 0 0 0

698

15,329

1,588

14,294

15,882

79,493 14,028

93,521

124,988

28,322

153,310

CAGO - TGP 0

378

34,030

34,408 0 0 0

25,440

25,440 0 32,422

32,422

378

91,891

92,270

CAGO - Tot.

38,860

1,158

65,242

66,401

31,195

15,329

1,588

45,660

47,248

79,493

46,450

125,943

167,624

157,352

324,976

LESG - WCF

4,386 0 0 0 0

3,728 0 0 0

620 0

620

8,734 0

8,734

LESG - MC 0

153

1,986

2,139 0 0 0

8,774

8,774 0 0 0

153

10,761

10,914

LESG - Tot.

4,386

153

1,986

2,139 0

3,728 0

8,774

8,774

620 0

620

8,886

10,761

19,647

GWFG - MC 0 0

30,045

30,045 0 0 0

6,082

6,082 0 5,725

5,725 0

41,852

41,852

Tot. Geese

43,246

1,311

97,274

98,585

31,195

19,057

1,588

60,516

62,104

80,113

52,175

132,288

176,510

209,964

386,475

Tot. WF

137,894

92,979

617,927

710,906

109,534

76,454

8,006

267,762

275,768

658,076

551,999

1,210,076

1,082,943

1,437,688

2,520,631

19

Table 3. PLJV nonbreeding (Sep – Apr) duck use-day equivalent (DUDE) objectives (in thousands). See text for explanation. CO KS NE NM OK TX PLJV

Species 18 18 19 KS Tot. 18 18 18 19 OK

Total 18 19 TX Total 18 Total 19 Total PLJV Total

MALL

12,905

12,520

70,876

83,395

10,802

3,446

707

22,037

22,743

20,701

16,038

36,739

61,080

108,950

170,031

GADW

121

48

610

658

35

4,174

86

3,644

3,730

49,186

70,679

119,865

53,650

74,932

128,582

AMWI

386

882

4,829

5,710

84

15,272

268

14,539

14,807

67,903

51,433

119,336

84,794

70,800

155,595

AGWT

149

140

1,140

1,280

1

2,744

80

1,514

1,594

48,121

47,135

95,256

51,235

49,789

101,024

NSHO

511

-

9

9 -

5,319

21

556

577

59,426

27,174

86,600

65,277

27,739

93,016

NOPI

1,755

296

2,031

2,327

24

32,939

110

2,453

2,563

578,750

606,082

1,184,831

613,874

610,565

1,224,439

WODU 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,375

43,175

44,550

8,701

8,730

17,432

10,076

51,905

61,981

Dabblers

15,827

13,885

79,495

93,380

10,945

63,894

2,647

87,917

90,564

832,788

827,270

1,660,058

939,987

994,682

1,934,668

REDH

12

5

43

47

5

578

9

900

909

92,720

36,188

128,908

93,329

37,131

130,459

CANV

-

-

1

1

1

290

1

49

50

1,763

851

2,614

2,055

901

2,955

LESC 0

5

52

57

62

465

19

1,937

1,956

20,250

20,247

40,496

20,801

22,235

43,036

RNDU

0

19

448

467

1

523 0

844

844

172

1,176

1,348

1,890

2,468

4,358

RUDU 0 0

1

1 0

492 0

77

77

2,991

234

3,225

495,140

312

495,452

Divers

13

29

544

573

69

2,348

29

3,807

3,836

117,895

58,696

176,591

613,215

63,046

676,261

Tot. Ducks

15,840

13,914

80,038

93,953

11,014

66,243

2,677

91,723

94,400

950,683

885,966

1,836,649

1,553,202

1,057,728

2,610,929

CAGO - HL

6,038 0 0 0

3,369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9,407 0

9,407

CAGO - WP/GP 0

314

12,577

12,891

9,820 0 0

2,388

2,388 0 0 0

10,134

14,965

25,099

CAGO - SGP

9,451 0 0 0

237

5,194

538

4,843

5,381

14,285 0

14,285

29,704

4,843

34,547

CAGO - TGP 0

77

6,941

7,018 0 0 0

5,189

5,189 0

11,288

11,288

77

23,417

23,495

CAGO - Tot.

15,489

391

19,518

19,909

13,426

5,194

538

12,420

12,958

14,285

11,288

25,572

49,323

43,225

92,548

LESG - WCF

1,242 0 0 0 0

1,055 0 0 0

171 0

171

2,468 0

2,468

LESG - MC 0

46

591

637 0 0 0

2,611

2,611 0

6,961

6,961

46

10,163

10,209

LESG - Tot.

1,242

46

591

637 0

1,055 0

2,611

2,611

171

6,961

7,131

2,513

10,163

12,676

GWFG - MC 0 0

6,581

6,581 0 0 0

1,332

1,332 0

2,508

2,508 0

10,422

10,422

Tot. Geese

16,731

437

26,690

27,127

13,426

6,249

538

16,363

16,901

14,455

20,757

35,212

51,836

63,810

115,646

Tot. WF

32,571

14,351

106,729

121,080

24,440

72,492

3,215

108,086

111,301

965,139

906,723

1,871,861

1,605,038

1,121,538

2,726,576

20

Table 4. Importance assessment of limiting factors for waterfowl in the PLJV, degree of management control, and priority level for management actions (H=high; M=moderate; L=low). Response Variable Limiting Factor Bird Numbers Survival Body Condition Management Control Priority Foraging habitat - wetland

H H-M H H 1

Roosting habitat (water)

H H-M H M 1

Foraging habitat - agricultural

H H-M H H 2

Disease L M L M-L 3 Disturbance - hunting

M-HA L L M 4

Contaminants L M-L L L 5 PredationB N/A L L L 5 Disturbance - nonhunting

L-MC L L L 5

Inter-specific competition

L L L L 5

WeatherD H M M N/A N/A AM for ducks, H for geese. BPredation includes disturbance by predators. CL for ducks, M for geese. DSeasonal ice and snow cover.

21

Table 5. Importance assessment for waterfowl foraging and roosting habitats in the PLJV (H=high; M=moderate; L=low). Guild Dabbling Ducks Diving Ducks Geese Habitat Foraging

Value Roost Value

Foraging/Roost Value

Foraging Value

Roost Value

PlayasA H H M H H Saline Lakes L 0 0 0 0 Reservoirs H - L H H - MB L H Marsh H H H H H Stock Tanks H - L H H - M L H Rivers L M M L H Sewage Lagoon M H H 0 H Moist SoilC H H L M - L H Wet Meadow L 0 0 0 0 Gravel Pits L L L 0 M Sheet Water H M 0 H L Canals/Ditches L L L 0 0 Grazing/Pasture 0 0 0 M - L 0 CornD H 0 0 H 0 Sorghum H 0 0 H 0 Peanuts H 0 0 H 0 Winter Wheat LE 0 0 H 0 Cotton 0 0 0 0 0 Sunflowers 0 0 0 L 0 Soybeans M 0 0 H - M 0 Alfalfa 0F 0 0 M - L 0 AWet but unmanaged. BH for mergansers, M for other divers. CIncludes managed playas. DDoes not include corn harvested for silage, which has zero foraging value (assumed). EH for American Wigeon. FL for American Wigeon.

22

Table 6. Important waterfowl foraging habitats, energetic carrying capacity (ECC), threats, and trends. Habitat ECC

(DUDEs/Acre) References Applicable Guilds Threats Trends

Res., Lakes & Ponds Reservoirs 4,223 (for 5% of

total area) Assumption; consistent w/ LMVJV.

Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks Decreased inflows, sedimentation. Declining or stable.

Freshwater Lakes 4,223 (for 5% of total area)

Assumption; consistent w/ LMVJV.

Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks Declining groundwater. Stable.

Stock Ponds 225 (for 40% of total area0

Assumption; consistent w/ LMVJV.

Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks Overgrazing. Stable in BCR18; increasing in BCR19.

Lagoons 428 Assumed same as unmanaged playas.

Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks Contaminants. Stable or increasing.

Playas Wet Outside Pit 428 Haukos & Smith

1993, Anderson & Smith 1998; 1999

Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks, Geese

Siltation, tillage, overgrazing, modification (pits, roads, etc.). Decreasing irrigation tailwater.

Decreasing in many areas; stable in NM.

Wet Pit Only 849 Gray & Bolen 1987 Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks, Geese

Siltation is filling in existing pits; new pits generally are not being created.

Decreasing.

Other Wetlands Emergent Marsh 1,336 Assumption. Dabbling ducks, Diving

ducks, Geese None. Stable.

Saline Marsh 1,336 Assumption Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks, Geese

None. Stable.

Moist-Soil Units* 4,223 Haukos & Smith 1993, Anderson & Smith 1998; 1999

Dabbling ducks, Geese Undesirable and exotic vegetation. Increasing.

Riverine River channels 225 Assumption. Dabbling ducks, Diving ducks Reduced flows caused by aquifer depletion, reservoir

development, exotic shrub invasion. Declining.

Warmwater Sloughs 428 Assumption. Dabbling ducks Reduced river flows, sedimentation. Declining. Floodplain Marshes 1,336 Assumption Dabbling ducks Declining river flows and groundwater. Declining.

Cropland Corn 1,336 Baldassarre & Bolen

1984; Reinecke & Loesch 1996

Dabbling ducks, Geese Not assessed.

Sorghum 849 Reinecke & Loesch 1996

Dabbling ducks Geese

Not assessed.

Peanuts 849 Assumption. Dabbling ducks, Geese Not assessed. Winter Wheat 1,336 Assumption. Geese Not assessed.

*Includes moist-soil managed playas.

23

Table 7. Current energetic carrying capacity (ECC) of PLJV planning areas for waterfowl relative to goals, and habitat objectives. Planning Area

BCR-18 BCR-19

CO KS NE NM OK TX KS OK TX

ECC Goal (DUDEs) 32,570,531 14,351,091 24,439,744

72,491,588

3,214,666

965,138,689

106,728,704

108,086,411

706,722,667

Current ECC of Area (DUDEs)

48,502,629

21,145,129

27,135,520

21,228,654

17,956,214

283,890,539

145,233,170

157,730,600

99,172,372

DUDE Surplus/(Deficit) 15,932,098 6,794,038 2,695,776

(51,262,934)

14,741,548

(681,248,150)

38,504,466

49,644,189

(607,550,295)

Current ECC of Area Relative to Goal (%)

148.5% 146.9% 109.6% 29.0% 558.2% 28.9% 135.8% 145.5% 13.5%

Moist-soil Habitat Acres Needed to Erase Deficit (@4,223 DUDEs/acre)

N/A N/A N/A 12,139 N/A 161,319 N/A N/A 143,867

Annual Moist-soil Habitat Acreage Goal (30 years)

N/A N/A N/A 405 N/A 5,377 N/A N/A 4,796

24

APPENDIX A: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Colorado

Association Name Assoc. Acres Condition Name Cond. Acres % of Assoc % Suitability ECC (DUDEs) CC Current Goal (DUDEs) % of Goal

Cropland 10,345,029 Corn

713,807 0.06900 0.00 1,336 0 32,570,531 0.0000 Cropland 10,345,029 Peanuts - 0.00000 0.00 849 0 32,570,531 0.0000

Cropland 10,345,029 Sorghum

331,041 0.03200 0.00 849 0 32,570,531 0.0000

Cropland 10,345,029 Wheat

1,468,994 0.14200 0.00 1,336 0 32,570,531 0.0000

Other Wetlands 1,761 Emergent marsh

1,761 1.00000 1.00 1,336 2,352,696 32,570,531 0.0720 Other Wetlands 1,761 Moist-soil unit - 0.00000 1.00 4,223 0 32,570,531 0.0000 Other Wetlands 1,761 Saline - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 32,570,531 0.0000

Playa 22,321 Wet

2,009 0.09000 1.00 428 859,805 32,570,531 0.0260

Playa 22,321 Wet pit only

1,339 0.06000 0.40 849 454,813 32,570,531 0.0130

Reservoirs Lakes Ponds 190,099 Freshwater lake

52,848 0.27800 0.05 4,223 11,158,754 32,570,531 0.3420

Reservoirs Lakes Ponds 190,099 Lagoon

3,802 0.02000 0.40 428 650,899 32,570,531 0.0190

Reservoirs Lakes Ponds 190,099 Reservoir

58,170 0.30600 0.05 4,223 12,282,658 32,570,531 0.3770

Reservoirs Lakes Ponds 190,099 Stock pond

71,477 0.37600 0.40 225 6,432,950 32,570,531 0.1970

Riverine Systems 495,329 Floodplain marsh

4,953 0.01000 1.00 1,336 6,617,595 32,570,531 0.2030

Riverine Systems 495,329 River channel

24,766 0.05000 1.00 225 5,572,451 32,570,531 0.1710

Riverine Systems 495,329 Warmwater slough

4,953 0.01000 1.00 428 2,120,008 32,570,531 0.0650

Totals 48,502,629 1.4850

*Goal is for the PLJV portion of BCR18-CO only (see Fig. 1); therefore carrying capacity shown here is too high. This inconsistency

will be rectified following decisions on the JV orientation of the South Platte River corridor of Colorado.

25

APPENDIX B: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Kansas





1,002,341 0.15000 0.00 849 0 14,351,091 0.0000


2,258,608 0.33800 0.00 1,336 0 14,351,091 0.0000


2,905 0.98600 1.00 1,336 3,880,754 14,351,091 0.2700

Other Wetlands 2,946 Moist-soil unit

41 0.01400 1.00 4,223 174,173 14,351,091 0.0120 Other Wetlands 2,946 Saline - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 14,351,091 0.0000

Playa 90,724 Wet

8,165 0.09000 1.00 428 3,494,688 14,351,091 0.2430


5,443 0.06000 0.40 849 1,848,592 14,351,091 0.1280


6,412 0.75900 0.05 4,223 1,353,901 14,351,091 0.0940


169 0.02000 0.40 428 28,926 14,351,091 0.0020


118 0.01400 0.05 4,223 24,973 14,351,091 0.0010


1,580 0.18700 0.40 225 142,180 14,351,091 0.0090


3,503 0.01000 1.00 1,336 4,679,874 14,351,091 0.3260


24,520 0.07000 1.00 225 5,517,068 14,351,091 0.3840 Riverine Systems 350,290 Warmwater slough - 0.00000 1.00 428 0 14,351,091 0.0000

Totals 21,145,129 1.4690

26

APPENDIX C: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Nebraska





35,134 0.00900 0.00 849 0 24,439,744 0.0000


995,472 0.25500 0.00 1,336 0 24,439,744 0.0000


10,273 0.96400 1.00 1,336 13,725,193 24,439,744 0.5610


32 0.00300 1.00 4,223 135,014 24,439,744 0.0050

Other Wetlands 10,657 Saline

352 0.03300 1.00 1,336 469,846 24,439,744 0.0190

Playa 103,026 Wet

9,272 0.09000 1.00 428 3,968,562 24,439,744 0.1620


6,182 0.06000 0.40 849 2,099,258 24,439,744 0.0850


310 0.00900 0.05 4,223 65,522 24,439,744 0.0020


690 0.02000 0.40 428 118,056 24,439,744 0.0040


21,860 0.63400 0.05 4,223 4,615,673 24,439,744 0.1880


6,689 0.19400 0.40 225 602,003 24,439,744 0.0240


463 0.01000 1.00 1,336 618,007 24,439,744 0.0250


2,313 0.05000 1.00 225 520,402 24,439,744 0.0210

Riverine Systems 46,258 Warmwater slough

463 0.01000 1.00 428 197,984 24,439,744 0.0000

Totals 27,135,520 1.0960

27

APPENDIX D: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 New Mexico


Cropland 947,453 Corn

70,112 0.07400 0.00 1,336 0 72,491,588 0.0000

Cropland 947,453 Peanuts

18,002 0.01900 0.00 849 0 72,491,588 0.0000

Cropland 947,453 Sorghum

157,277 0.16600 0.00 849 0 72,491,588 0.0000

Cropland 947,453 Wheat

442,461 0.46700 0.00 1,336 0 72,491,588 0.0000


5,243 1.00000 1.00 1,336 7,004,648 72,491,588 0.0960 Other Wetlands 5,243 Moist-soil unit - 0.00000 1.00 4,223 0 72,491,588 0.0000 Other Wetlands 5,243 Saline - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 72,491,588 0.0000

Playa 14,843 Wet

1,781 0.12000 1.00 428 762,336 72,491,588 0.0100


1,187 0.08000 0.40 849 403,255 72,491,588 0.0050


32,759 0.49500 0.05 4,223 6,917,084 72,491,588 0.0950


1,324 0.02000 0.40 428 226,600 72,491,588 0.0030


19,258 0.29100 0.05 4,223 4,066,407 72,491,588 0.0560


5,758 0.08700 0.40 225 518,189 72,491,588 0.0070


495 0.01000 1.00 1,336 661,601 72,491,588 0.0090


2,971 0.06000 1.00 225 668,534 72,491,588 0.0090 Riverine Systems 49,521 Warmwater slough - 0.00000 1.00 428 0 72,491,588 0.0000

Totals 21,228,654 0.2900

28

APPENDIX E: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Oklahoma



118,556 0.10900 0.00 1,336 0 3,214,666 0.0000 Cropland 1,087,673 Peanuts - 0.00 849 3,214,666 0.0000


233,850 0.21500 0.00 849 0 3,214,666 0.0000


532,960 0.49000 0.00 1,336 0 3,214,666 0.0000 Other Wetlands 14 Emergent marsh - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 3,214,666 0.0000

Other Wetlands 14 Moist-soil unit

14 1.00000 1.00 4,223 59,122 3,214,666 0.0180 Other Wetlands 14 Saline - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 3,214,666 0.0000

Playa 3,307 Wet

661 0.20000 1.00 428 283,079 3,214,666 0.0880


165 0.05000 0.40 849 56,153 3,214,666 0.0170


3,873 0.98200 0.05 4,223 817,786 3,214,666 0.2540 Reservoirs Lakes Ponds 3,944 Lagoon - 0.00000 0.40 428 0 3,214,666 0.0000 Reservoirs Lakes Ponds 3,944 Reservoir - 0.00000 0.05 4,223 0 3,214,666 0.0000


71 0.01800 0.40 225 6,389 3,214,666 0.0010


2,982 0.01000 1.00 1,336 3,984,353 3,214,666 1.2390



Totals 17,956,214 5.5820

29

APPENDIX F: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR18 Texas



661,698 0.10200 0.00 1,336 0 965,138,689 0.0000

Cropland 6,487,233 Peanuts

162,181 0.02500 0.00 849 0 965,138,689 0.0000


1,459,627 0.22500 0.00 849 0 965,138,689 0.0000


2,834,921 0.43700 0.00 1,336 0 965,138,689 0.0000


98,617 0.99900 1.00 1,336 131,752,691 965,138,689 0.1360



Playa 497,543 Wet

99,509 0.20000 1.00 428 42,589,681 965,138,689 0.0440


24,877 0.05000 0.40 849 8,448,280 965,138,689 0.0080


57,294 0.43300 0.05 4,223 12,097,655 965,138,689 0.0120


2,646 0.02000 0.40 428 453,060 965,138,689 0.0000


20,509 0.15500 0.05 4,223 4,330,569 965,138,689 0.0040


24,479 0.18500 0.40 225 2,203,111 965,138,689 0.0020

Riverine Systems 3,315,669 Floodplain marsh

33,157 0.01000 1.00 1,336 44,297,338 965,138,689 0.0450

Riverine Systems 3,315,669 River channel

165,783 0.05000 1.00 225 37,301,276 965,138,689 0.0380 Riverine Systems 3,315,669 Warmwater slough - 0.00000 1.00 428 0 965,138,689 0.0000

Totals 283,890,539 0.2890

30

APPENDIX G: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR19 Kansas



1,238,381 0.06900 0.00 1,336 0 106,728,704 0.0000 Cropland 17,947,545 Peanuts - 0.00000 0.00 849 0 106,728,704 0.0000


2,243,443 0.12500 0.00 849 0 106,728,704 0.0000


6,371,378 0.35500 0.00 1,336 0 106,728,704 0.0000 Other Wetlands 16,234 Emergent marsh - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 106,728,704 0.0000


16,234 1.00000 1.00 4,223 68,556,182 106,728,704 0.6420 Other Wetlands 16,234 Saline - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 106,728,704 0.0000

Playa 97,135 Wet

8,742 0.09000 1.00 428 3,741,640 106,728,704 0.0350


5,828 0.06000 0.40 849 1,979,223 106,728,704 0.0180


32,495 0.26000 0.05 4,223 6,861,277 106,728,704 0.0640


2,500 0.02000 0.40 428 427,932 106,728,704 0.0040


56,616 0.45300 0.05 4,223 11,954,456 106,728,704 0.1120


30,870 0.24700 0.40 225 2,778,305 106,728,704 0.0260


19,884 0.01000 1.00 1,336 26,564,824 106,728,704 0.2480



Totals 145,233,170 1.3580

31

APPENDIX H: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR19 Oklahoma



54,335 0.00600 0.00 1,336 0 108,086,411 0.0000


54,335 0.00600 0.00 849 0 108,086,411 0.0000


172,062 0.01900 0.00 849 0 108,086,411 0.0000


5,388,242 0.59500 0.00 1,336 0 108,086,411 0.0000


16,856 0.70000 1.00 1,336 22,519,616 108,086,411 0.2080


7,224 0.30000 1.00 4,223 30,506,952 108,086,411 0.2820 Other Wetlands 24,080 Saline - 0.00000 1.00 1,336 0 108,086,411 0.0000

Playa 51,527 Wet

10,305 0.20000 1.00 428 4,410,711 108,086,411 0.0400


2,576 0.05000 0.40 849 874,928 108,086,411 0.0080


45,647 0.43600 0.05 4,223 9,638,368 108,086,411 0.0890


2,094 0.02000 0.40 428 358,476 108,086,411 0.0030


53,394 0.51000 0.05 4,223 11,274,238 108,086,411 0.1040


1,570 0.01500 0.40 225 141,338 108,086,411 0.0010


31,697 0.01000 1.00 1,336 42,347,005 108,086,411 0.3910



Totals 157,730,600 1.4550

32

APPENDIX I: Waterfowl Carrying Capacity Model for BCR19 Texas



8,958 0.00300 0.00 1,336 0 706,722,667 0.0000


101,528 0.03400 0.00 849 0 706,722,667 0.0000


176,181 0.05900 0.00 849 0 706,722,667 0.0000


1,940,983 0.65000 0.00 1,336 0 706,722,667 0.0000


45,766 0.99800 1.00 1,336 61,143,755 706,722,667 0.0860



Playa 46,729 Wet

9,346 0.20000 1.00 428 4,000,002 706,722,667 0.0050


2,336 0.05000 0.40 849 793,458 706,722,667 0.0010


52,736 0.43700 0.05 4,223 11,135,175 706,722,667 0.0150


2,414 0.02000 0.40 428 413,198 706,722,667 0.0000


44,047 0.36500 0.05 4,223 9,300,546 706,722,667 0.0130


19,067 0.15800 0.40 225 1,716,027 706,722,667 0.0020


4,178 0.01000 1.00 1,336 5,582,262 706,722,667 0.0070



Totals 99,172,372 0.1350

33

APPENDIX J: Assumptions Made in Developing This Conservation Strategy

<to be completed?>

34

APPENDIX K: PLJV Waterfowl Research Priorities (updated June 2004)

High Priority:

• Foraging value (energy per unit area)/carrying capacity of priority habitatsA for waterfowl and sandhill cranes.

• Grazing impacts on foraging value of priority habitatsA. • Annual and seasonal availability of priority foraging habitatsA. • Effects of playa restoration techniques (buffers, filling pits, sediment removal) on

foraging value. • Migration chronology of waterfowl and sandhill cranes. • Playa hydroperiod in cropland vs. rangeland vs. CRP.

Medium Priority:

• Trends in quantity/quality of priority habitatsA. • Annual and seasonal variation in vital rates (survival, body condition) of priority speciesB

in relation to habitat conditions. • Habitat use and diets of priority speciesB, esp. the importance of non-seed, non-

invertebrate foods to northern pintails and mallards, and use of dry playas by sandhill cranes.

• Effects of hunting disturbance on waterfowl use of moist-soil managed areas. Low Priority:

• Contaminant levels in waterfowl and food items in wastewater lagoons. APriority Habitats = Managed moist-soil units, impoundments (reservoirs, stock ponds, lagoons), playas, emergent marsh, rivers (channels and warmwater sloughs), wet meadows, and cropland (corn, sorghum, peanuts, winter wheat). BPriority Species = Northern Pintail, Mallard, Sandhill Crane. BDS note June 2005: add food depletion to research list? (see p. 937 LMV planning paper)

waterfowl conservation strategy for the playa lakes joint ...the purpose of the north american...

Documents